D. Arizona cuts wage and hour fee award 53.4%, including for clerical work

What happened

Farhang & Medcoff sought $22,339.54 in fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court disallowed 9.9 hours spent learning fundamentals, struck entries for clerical and administrative tasks billed as legal work, and cut duplicative and excessive entries. It then applied a 25% reduction to the lodestar for limited success, awarding $10,400.63, a reduction of $11,938.91 or 53.4%.

What the court said

Completing this form is a clerical task which should not have been billed to the client. Accordingly, the Court will strike this entry.

The Court finds that this is also an administrative task which could have been performed by an assistant. Accordingly, the Court will strike 0.6 hours for these entries.

As such, the Court will decrease the entry by 0.2 hours.

The Court finds that this was a clerical task which was improperly billed to the client. Accordingly, the Court will strike this entry.

The court also reduced the award for: excessive hours, duplicative staffing, excessive hours, duplicative staffing, duplicative staffing, duplicative staffing, duplicative staffing, excessive hours, duplicative staffing, duplicative staffing, limited success.

Why it matters

The ruling shows courts will separate clerical tasks from legal work line by line, strike entries that duplicate staffing or reflect learning time, and then apply a further percentage cut for limited success, so the final award can fall well below the amount billed.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Leave purely clerical work off the fee petition.
• Describe paralegal tasks so the substantive work is clear.
• Split mixed entries into their substantive and clerical parts.

Cite this ruling

See hourly rates the D. Arizona approves and attorney fee motions in Arizona federal courts.

Figures and quotes are taken from the opinion and checked against its text. Spot an error? Email team@legaltime.ai with the case name and we will correct it. Summaries of public court opinions. Not legal advice.